Flip Flop - Kirkland City Council modifies previous Bank of America decision

28 Responses to “Flip Flop - Kirkland City Council modifies previous Bank of America decision”

1. Lack Of Leadership

   21 May, 2008, 8:49

   The council decision will not stop the appeals of downtown high rise projects and this process will go on and on and on. It will only save srm from having to file suit against Kirkland. Big changes are needed in this development process and our council has shown just how effective they are at being decisive. There is a lack of leadership in Kirkland. And this council keeps claiming how great they budget, how wonderful they manage. The joke is on us.

   [Reply]
2. Rob

   21 May, 2008, 14:03

   For the sake of clarification, the Council has not concluded the hearing and as such, no decisions made are final until the hearing is closed. On May 6 the Council adjourned having voted 4 to 3 in favor of the appellant. At the May 20 meeting, Council backed away from that decision and voted 6 to 1 in favor of tabling the resolution in order to allow for the possibility of a compromise.

   [Reply]
3. The Ghost of Peter Kirk

   21 May, 2008, 14:03

   I don’t know what’s worse, the indecisiveness, or the things that they let influence them. Did the DRB resignations have this effect? I should appreciate the change, because I think sending it back to the DRB for reconsideration is the right way to go. - correction, WAS the right way to go - when they decided 4-3 to accept the appeal and reject the DRB’s decision. Too bad they didn’t do that before 3 people resigned and the alternate member declined to serve on it.

   [Reply]
4. Don Winters

   21 May, 2008, 14:58

   Rob — I am appreciating the timely reports on Kirkland Views. Kirkland is sorely lacking in news coverage these days with the closure of the Seattle Times Eastside Bureau, and Kirkland Views is a welcome source of good information. Especially since you are knowledgeable on the issues to an extent often missing in Newspaper accounts.

   I hope the SRM proposal, or something close to it, ends up being built. I disagreed with the City Council’s decision in favor of the appeal. I think the project would be good for Kirkland and should not have been denied based on the appeal of a small group that obviously has personal interests at stake.

   The DRB resignations could paralyze Kirkland, and that seems to be setting in. I’d like to see the city move forward.

   [Reply]
5. do the math

   21 May, 2008, 15:01

   If at this point in time they want to 2 parties to sit across the table from one another and look for a compromise, wouldn’t this in effect, empower civik, and essentially put them in the role of the DRB? Asking for the two parties to look for compromise is just a different form of not doing your job if you’re the council. Am I off on this?

   [Reply]
6. Chris

   21 May, 2008, 16:34

   I would like to ask Mr. Winters how he is able to characterize CIVIK as “a small group that obviously has personal interests at stake?” That’s like saying that all commercial real estate developers are greedy predators. I know several members of CIVIK, and not one of them cares about personal interests. Rather, they seem to simply support “reasonable” development in downtown Kirkland, and oddly enough, five-story monstrosities don’t seem to fit their definition of reasonable, especially when this violates current city regulations.

   [Reply]
7. George Zip

   21 May, 2008, 16:38

   I agree with Don Winters that the DRB resignations could paralyze Kirkland. That board is a gatekeeper for development projects downtown. What will Civik and SRM be able to agree on?
   Can they agree to a large 20-30 ft 3rd floor setback on Lakestreet that would for all intents and purposes be a “two story building”? How about that exchange for allowing a 5th floor? Can there be compromises like that at this stage of the game? I think it needs to be a 3 party discussion because the city needs to be in there to approve of it. Do the math is right, the council is acting as DRB until a new one is appointed.

   [Reply]
8. a voter

   21 May, 2008, 21:50

   “I know several members of CIVIK, and not one of them cares about personal interests.”

   Oh, please! You want to hear about some of the members of CiViK? They live in high rise condos that tower high above Central Way, overlooking the Lake and Central site that was the site of their first victory over progress. Others live West of Market, where the feared that the Lake and Cental project would add a couple minutes to their drives back and forth to their megahouses.

   I don’t deny their right to oppose these projects. I just can’t abide your statement.

   Wait, but I can’t talk about who is in that group right now - they do not list their membership. They don’t have a list of donors on their site. Who knows who they are? If you do, Chris, then are one of them?

   [Reply]
9. Long Time Kirkland Resident

   22 May, 2008, 0:18

   Oh my God! I finally watched the video of the KCC meeting last night. Tom Hodgson says, “the lack of a quorum in the DRB is somewhat related to the rejection of the DRB’s approval of the BofA.” It’s a direct result!

   And Jessica Greenway is “comfortable reviewing a modified design” and “there are way more than two issues.” What does she know about design??? This type of behavior is so ignorant. She doesn’t even know what she doesn’t know. It would be laughable if it weren’t so frightening that these people are running our local government…

   Einstein said, “there are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and we’re not sure about the universe.”

   Oh boy, how reassuring… Tom Hodgson is “ready to get a reconstituted DRB up and running as quickly as possible and he’s talked to the remaining members of the DRB and they’re ready to do good hard work and he’s ready to get them back and engaged immediately!” Remember, Tom’s quotes about what the DRB did or didn’t do were down right nasty. He said “the DRB ignored their charter” and “they made it fit” as though they had a hidden agenda and he asked “whether a DRB was even necessary.” Now he’s “not comfortable doing their job?” So, is he back-pedaling or what?

   But oh goody, now they can stack the open positions on the DRB with CIVIK members that have no design expertise and then there won’t be any disagreements. I say just let the planning office do the design review job. At least they know what they’re doing.

   Also take note that one of the remaining three DRB members is new and has only sat in on one DRB meeting! So, there are really only two members with any experience whatsoever. And the new guy is not an architect nor a designer.

   But Jessica Greenway wants the appeallant CIVIK and the developer SRM to collaborate. Are they going to hold public forums on the discussions. CIVIKs lawyer doesn’t want it to be formal. The DRB process has to be formal but the appeallant can dictate their desires to SRM without formal process???? Wow, CIVIK really does run the show.

   Councilwoman Greenway says, “So many things to consider it’s hard to know.” She wants to “give clear guidelines?” They can’t even figure out what the rules are. They just want to make up the rules as they go along.

   Now Councilwoman Greenway wants to “add art to the law” to short-circuit and speed up the process. The DRB made trade-offs with some design guidelines and Councilwoman Greenway villified the DRB for doing so and said, “the DRB made a mistake” in making design trade-offs. So it’s ok for her to take liberties with the “law” but it’s not ok for the DRB to interpret guidelines?????

   One final comment I believe is noteworthy. I like the fact that Bob Sternoff, Mary Alyce, and Joan McBride didn’t say one single word during the entire 1.5 hour exchange. To me their silence sends a clear message. At the last KCC meeting they said their piece, tried to convince the others of the foolishness in their deliberations, cast their votes, and now they don’t want any part of the debacle the others have created.

   [Reply]
10. Don Winters

    22 May, 2008, 10:53

    A short article appeared in the Seattle Times today on this issue:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004430955_kirkland22m.html

    [Reply]
11. short time kirkland resident

    22 May, 2008, 22:50

    Hey mr. long time kirkland resident - looks like you have some serious bones to pick with these people who run this town. you seem to know a bunch of stuff about kirkland so stick to the facts and help come up with a solution or two. picking on people who cant defend themselves is not cool. solve a problem and offer ideas. peace.

    [Reply]
12. East of Marketer

    22 May, 2008, 23:47

    I’ve been living in the downtown Kirkland area for roughly 11 years now and recall when some of the larger condo projects were built, when building height moratoriums were put in place, when the last development project was defeated on appeal. Here are my thoughts on this latest developments:

    1. I personally feel the KCC did overstep their bounds in denying the BoA DRB approval. Unless there was an egregious violation of city code and design guidelines,
    the KCC should have sided with the DRB approval. In doing what they did, they have undermined the credibility, especially in light of Mr. Hodgson’s remarks regarding the DRB.

    2. The KCC latest move, to effectively elevate CiViK to the authority of the DRB is another mistake. Especially in light of CiViK’s initial response, if what “Long Time Kirkland Resident” has stated is true, of not wanting to engage SRM in discussions regarding the BoA project. CiViK does not carry any authority through the City of Kirkland Government, they are merely a civic activist organization.

    3. CiViK appears to have strong views regarding what their vision of Downtown Kirkland should be. The DRB should hold, my apologies if they already do, at least twice a year, public meetings to take input from various civic organizations that would like to provide input on potential changes to city code and design guidelines such that projects of this nature do not get as far as they have (twice now) and then be submarined by a group of activitist. NOTE: I’m not saying that groups shouldn’t have the right to appeal, but that grounds for the KCC to go against the DRB approval should be as a result of a much more substantial code/guideline violation and not based on an intepretation, i.e., it should be much more “cut and dry”.

    4. KCC should realize that they’re not design professionals and as such should not be overriding those that are appointed/selected for the DRB board. KCC has now created a situation where I can’t think of anyone with the proper credentials from wanting to serve on the DRB board if this type of thing will go on where their work will be publicly ridiculed and overridden by KCC members lacking expertise. Why would they spend their time?

    5. If CiViK continues not wanting to collaborate both publicly and formally with SRM and who is left of DRB, then the KCC should reverse their early decision and approve the DRB’s initial decision approving the project. Unfortunately, KCC really can’t do this…this is KCC’s attempt at CYA and they’re hoping SRM/CiViK will “bail them out!” This is really a bit of a quandry since on the one hand, CiViK already feels they have won given the 4-3 vote and doesn’t have to do anything, meaning collaborate; while on the otherhand SRM has DRB approval and likewise probably feels they don’t have to do anything! My prediction, and I hope I’m wrong, is that CiViK won’t budge and SRM will give up after their lawyers have determined they can successfully sue the City and possibly members of the KCC.

    6. Kirkland residents I’m sure, either one way or another, will remember the lack of leadership and indecisiveness shown on the part of particular KCC members and this will have an effect come the next time these members are up for relection!

    7. My prediction, CiViK will not budge, SRM will kill the project and then sue the City and certain KCC members, certain KCC members either will not run or will be defeated in future elections.

    [Reply]
13. Tia

    23 May, 2008, 9:27

    Would someone explain why a developer and a citizens’ group should be expected or allowed to negotiate amongst themselves what city codes allow for? CiVik had enough money and motivation to raise this suit and now that means they’re an equal party here? I’m mystified what the KCC is thinking at this point. Is a citywide vote on this project their next step? Talk about a leadership vacuum . . . and just consider all the other hot topics in the queue right now. It’s going to be an interesting year.

    [Reply]
14. Mavio

    23 May, 2008, 17:10

    I adopted Kirkland as my home town in 1974 when the population was 8000, we had one traffic light and two police officers. Do I wish it had remained the same? Of course I do. Once I moved here I wish I could have closed the door.

    Unfortunately that is not the way life works. We have to share with others this wonderful town (now a city) even if we don’t like it. I think the members of Civik do have their own personal interests at heart and they have deluded themselves into thinking it is the best for the City and for the rest of us.

    I hope the KCC will reverse their decison to uphold the appeal and get down on their knees and beg those members of the DRB who quit (I don’t blame them) to return to the Board.

    June 3rd is supposed to be the night when the council hears the appeal filed by Civik against the McCloud project. Hopefully the KCC will have learned their lesson over the SRM debacle and deny the appeal.

    Just for the record, in an earlier blog a couple of weeks ago, someone stated that Stuart McCleod didn’t care about Kirkland as he lived in California. Nothing could be further from the truth. He lives right down the street from his proposed project and has lived in Kirkland all his life.

    [Reply]
15. Feather Gong

    23 May, 2008, 18:36

    The McLeod project is not being appealed by civik. City board members who find it necessary to resign en masse because their decisions have been questioned are perhaps too arrogant for the job to begin with. Kirkland citizens can only hope that other qualified professionals will step up to the plate and assist with future proposals.

    [Reply]
16. East of Marketer

    24 May, 2008, 1:38

    FG… I believe you are right in the sense that the Kirkland Reporter mistakenly had stated that CiViK was appealing the McLeod project…

    However, I don’t think it’s fair to make the statement that DRB members who resigned are “too arrogant for the job…”. These people are not paid, have good credentials (at least most of them do) and generally feel they are applying their expertise to help the city out. Quite frankly, I don’t blame some of them for resigning after putting in extra hours outside of their normal 40 hour week or so and then to have KCC members go about creatively interpreting city code/design guidelines and blatantly overruling them when there did not exist enough evidence to suggest that the DRB approval represented an egregious and flagrant violation of city code/guidelines. I believe the KCC also ignored the advice of the City Attorney’s office regarding the interpretation of “use” with regards to the retail space. CiViK, like any citizen/group has a right to file an appeal, if they want to, but the bar has to be higher for CiViK to meet in order, IMHO, for the KCC members to override the DRB approval and that wasn’t the case here. Again, this is my own personal opinion, but I would hazard a guess that others will agree with me here.

    I think KCC/CoK has to either ask the DRB members that resigned to re-consider (in light of the KCC’s vote to table) or fill the vacant spots on the DRB with people having the proper credentials that are neutral to the process, i.e., not stacked with CiViK members (even thought they have a right to apply for the vacancies). This of course will be hard to ensure given the fact that CiViK does not publish their member list.

    [Reply]
17. Mavio

    25 May, 2008, 13:46

    FG got me. Civik didn’t file an appeal of the McLeod project. However, an appeal has been filed by 12 Kirkland residents. 10 of them live at Portsmith. I guess there is no way to be sure as Civik is a secret organization but my guess is most of those who filed this appeal are connected to Civik.

    And why would a qualified professional, without an axe to grind, want to serve on a board where after countless hours of meetings and negotiations with project developers their decisions and reccomendations are thrown out by elected politicians wanting to ensure there re-election.

    FG, read the 1930’s novel by Ann Rand, “The Fountainhead”.

    [Reply]
18. Long Time Kirkland Resident

    28 May, 2008, 20:30

    FG, it has nothing to do with the DRB’s decisions being questioned. CIVIK members had plenty of opportunity to do that at the public DRB meetings through an established process. CIVIK simply didn’t like the outcome because it was going to block views. So, they went crying to the sympathetic ears of the people they support on the KCC.

    Are you saying that your such as stand-up person that when you VOLUNTEER your time and expertise and someone ridicules you in public and questions your ethics as Tom Hodgson did of the DRB, you think that’s acceptable. It’s pretty clear from your statement that the arrogance lies with you. You must be a member of CIVIK.

    Mavio has it right. The Portsmitth and CIVIK folks are all the same NIMBYs. Just because they try to misdirect with proxies and dummy organizations doesn’t change anything.

    [Reply]
19. murph

    29 May, 2008, 13:58

    I’m thrilled to have a forum for Kirklander’s to vent their frustrations as well as make positive suggestions for the future of Kirkland’s downtown. My hope for this forum is that it becomes a regular, “must read” for City officials. If Kirkland Views turns into nothing more than a place for ranting about the City, DRB, Council, CiVik, or whoever is a hot topic of the moment, I fear the most useful and exciting purpose of the blog will be lost. There are many great ideas out there, let’s make this a repository for the give and take of positive ideas as well as compliments and complaints.

    [Reply]
20. murph

    29 May, 2008, 14:47

    I attended the City Council meeting that overturned the DRB approval of the B of A site. I have contributed to CiViK and live in neither the downtown core nor West of Market. I do not believe CiViK’s opposition to the B of A design was because of view obstruction, at least that is not why I supported their appeal.

    My belief is that the four corners at Kirkland Ave & Lake St are the most important corners in all of downtown Kirkland - the CROSSROADS OF KIRKLAND COMMERCE and THE GATEWAY TO THE LAKE. I feel that these 4 corner sites (along with the parking lot & old Triple J’s site on Central) should be treated differently in the City Code than the neighborhing parcels. The set backs, height, design and use should be treated separately. Let’s sit back, re-evaluate and come up with a compromise, something that everyone can live with and something GREATER than what was approved? We need to think out of the box as we have only one chance to make this happen!!!

    I do not oppose a bank on the corner, but I do oppose the bulk of the building as well as the street level sf given to banking. Why not compromise? An idea would be to have a main bank entrance at the ‘corner’ but with an escelator & elevator up to 2nd floor banking, leaving the bulk of the superior retail space for…well, retail!

    Additionally, I would like to see the developers and architects consider 2nd story restaurant space with street level entry similar to Vancouver’s Robson St on a smaller scale. 2nd floor (or top floor) dining serves two purposes: 1) it would provide deep upper level setback for outoor dining getting patrons awaf from traffic views to city views (there is nothing more unappealing than having headlights illuminating your table), 2) provide architectually significant and interesting set-backs. Or perhaps a two level restaurant, small lunch cafe on the street level with larger fine dining upstairs (with setbacks for outside dining).

    Happiness would be Oriel’s location become a fabulous independent bakery and deli with fresh, quality bake goods, hearty homemade soups and salads. There is a wonderful bakery that fits this description in West Vancouver, better than any in Seattle.

    How many stories is the right mix? I am OK with 5 stories on Lake St but in my opinion, the set backs are inadequate. The 5th story should be set back at least 20′ to render it insignificant from street level. I know that McLeod plans are for no residential, but I wonder if he considered having the 5th floor as residential penthouse homes with large terraces (similar to Marina Heights 4th level). They could command big bucks with ample square footage, incredible terraces and views. I understand that people of Portsmith will never be happy with 5 stories, but the truth is, without recorded view covenants, views are never guaranteed.

    What about the west side of Lake Street? Development will never happen with the limit of 2 stories. Consider 3…with the upper floors being residential penthouse homes, 3rd floor setbacks on both east and west sides.

    My ideas are many, so I am happy to have a forum to share some ideas, but enough for now…

    [Reply]
21. Tia

    29 May, 2008, 17:50

    Murph, regarding Lake and Kirkland you say that ” The set backs, height, design and use should be treated separately. ” The downtown plan does all that, perhaps not divided up quite the way you want but it’s mostly there.

    The “use” issue is a bit stickier–is it the job of local government to specify tenants? I was at the two meetings where the appeal was heard and there was abundant confusion over the council’s ability to regulate use. I guess I’m on the side of the fence where we believe the market sorts out use. Government writes the codes that ensure planning decisions support use. The bank is viable because people use it. Robson Street has a bunch of ‘em.

    [Reply]
22. murph

    29 May, 2008, 20:53

    Long Time Kirkland Resident, What about sarcastic diatribes do you think will be helpful?

    [Reply]
23. admin

    30 May, 2008, 1:36

    murph:
    Thank you for your input on this subject. Your effort to find positive ideas going forward are to be commended. What Kirkland needs is solutions as I believe the problem has been identified.

    [Reply]
24. The Ghost of Peter Kirk

    30 May, 2008, 11:10

    I agree that the route to resolving these issues should have been different. A couple better methods have been mentioned in this very discussion. For one, CiViK and like-minded opponents could have spoken up at DRB meetings. Even better, though, is LTKR’s thought that it would be better to look at revision of the building codes (and/or comp plan, zoning, et al) rather than to wait until the DRB, city planners and the developer have labored for months, then jump in with protests.

    On the other hand, were I one of the naysayers, I would be tempted about this the same way they did, because the system favors this. I don’t approve of it, but the best way to block these projects is clear. Just wait until it has cleared every standard hurdle in the extensive Kirkland development approval process, then take my protest to the city council. That is a poor system, but people in Kirkland have learned that it is how to get their way.

    My hope is that council members realize that they are enabling a process that is unfair to property owners and developers, hard on the city employees whose work is set aside (as well as taxpayers who pay for their time), and impolite to the members of the DRB.

    To come back to the “flip flop”, I actually see this as a positive move in the sense that council is trying to get to a final result as to what they will allow at this bank site rather than to just kill the entire development proposal, which is what CiViK’s attorney requested. Outright rejection would have maximized the impediment to the development process.

    One of CiViK’s leading members had a letter published in the May 21, 2008 issue of the Kirkland Reporter which said, “it is frustrating to be characterized as being against proposals. Our efforts as individuals and collectively in support of other community activities are, sadly, overshadowed by events that receive more attention. However, if we learn from these recent events and channel our energy toward a collective community vision, it will be an honor to be counted in support of the process and the outcomes.”

    I will be waiting for CiViK’s energy to manifest itself in that way.

    [Reply]
25. Don Winters

    30 May, 2008, 16:54

    I’m wondering what ever happened to basic growth management concepts in all of this. Aren’t taller buildings, with their higher density, encouraged in close-in areas such as Kirkland? There was just an article today in the Seattle newspapers about how they want to change zoning code to increase building heights in the area south of downtown near Safeco and Quest fields.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/365170_southdowntown30.html

    Taller buildings are environmentally friendly by fighting sprawl and making mass transit workable. No one seems to be discussing this aspect of the issue.

    [Reply]
26. Long Time Kirkland Resident

    31 May, 2008, 0:05

    Same-old, same-old… Murph thinks it’s ok for FG to call the DRB members that resigned arrogant but it’s not ok for me to be sarcastic. This is just the kind of frustrating ignorant attitude that CIVIK supporters and KCC members like Jessica Greenway and Tom Hodgson exhibit which brings out the sarcasm in me. You think a behavior is ok when it suits you but not for others that are not like-minded. Just like when councilwoman Greenway wanted to apply “art to the law to speed up the process” but ridiculed the DRB for creatively applying vague design guidelines.

    Furthermore, admin congratulates Murph in looking for positive solutions which, again, the DRB tried to do and were they congratulated? No, they were met instead with lawsuits and insulting statements from the likes of councilman Hodgson. So, Murph, I say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    As TGOPK said, instead of doing something constructive like the DRB members were trying to do, CIVIK sits back and waits until their board members see something they don’t like at which time they soliciit money from followers so they can throw everything into a tail spin at our expense.

    Don Winters is right-on!!!! Higher density with effective rapid transit is the way to beat congestion. We don’t live in Langley, Washington! Traffic in Kirkland is awful because we think that two story buildings on Lake street is somehow going to solve that… Make everything pedestrian friendly. We had some really talented people work out a really good compromise for BofA building that made it really pedestrian friendly. And a fifth sotry and a bank tenant somehow made it a awful solution. For who????

    I agree with Tia. So, Murph, Oriel isn’t good enough for you? Why don’t you buy it and open up a bakery? I want quality retail downtown too. But your living in a fantasy land… With the high rents that downtown commands if there isn’t ways to off-set the prices businesses will have to charge patrons, the cost will be so high they’ll go elsewhere. You want a two story restaurant in a building that’s restricted to four stories on a piece of property that cost 7.4 million dollars plue the cost of constructions, taxes, energy, etc. Have you worked out the economies of scale?

    [Reply]
27. murph

    31 May, 2008, 9:38

    LTKR, Where in any of my posts did I agree that the resigned members of the DRB were arrogant? And where did I propose a 2 story restaurant in a “building restricted to 4 stories”? Get your facts straight, pal. You may think you’re clever, but your sarcastic diatribes are NOT helpful. Calm yourself down. From another LTKR.

    [Reply]
28. murph

    2 June, 2008, 17:07

    LTKR
    Thank you for the correction. You are correct in my quote regarding CONSIDERING a second story restaurant space. What I did NOT specify was the height of the structure, per your original comment.

    [Reply]